Truth News Australia

Subscribe to TNRA
Subscribe to TNRA

Complete Withdrawal of Support by Richard Gage, AIA, for CIT’s “National Security Alert”

10 February 2011 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=1905

Richard Gage | 8 Feb 2011

I am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at all.  In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of their efforts from me.

In early 2009, I watched the “National Security Alert” video by the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) where recollections of 10 eyewitness accounts of the attack on the Pentagon were presented (of many more that were interviewed).  These accounts included the witnesses’ recollection of the path being taken by the plane prior to impact. The path that many of them recalled was to the north of the former CITGO gas station.  Based on these few accounts CIT presented its case that the plane flew over the Pentagon since the damage trail was not consistent with the north path.

My main focus relative to 9/11 had been on the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers.  I had not been able to spend much time on the Pentagon issue.  I was initially impressed by CIT’s presentation and, more than a year and a half ago, provided a short statement of support for their efforts.

After making my statement I became aware of more details of the CIT witness accounts as well as the rest of the compelling eyewitness testimony that is available. The vast majority of eyewitness accounts refute the CIT flyover conclusion, as they entail that the plane hit the Pentagon or was flying so low it could not miss.
I was also surprised to learn that 12 of the witnesses that CIT interviewed (including six witnesses to whom CIT refers to as north path witnesses) were in a position to see the Pentagon and all 12 stated that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon.  It was clear from this that CIT used improper investigative methods. CIT used and presented only those portions of their witness reports which fit their conclusion. The preponderance of  CIT’s own evidence in fact supports the conclusion that the plane impacted the Pentagon. (See Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert” and other works listed below for these and many additional witness statements that describe the plane as clearly impacting the Pentagon).

Because of these concerns I provided new statements in December 2009 and January 2010 pointing out that my previous statement of support should not be interpreted as an endorsement of their conclusion that the airplane flew over the Pentagon.  Despite these statements, CIT has continued to publish my original statement and characterize it as an endorsement of their flyover conclusion.  I am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at all.  In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of their efforts from me.

I base my present position also on a number of blogs, papers, blogs, and videos that have shed light on the Pentagon Flight 77 issues and on CIT’s work. These papers should be among those studied by anyone seeking the full truth about these matters.  Most of these works analyze additional evidence and come to different conclusions than CIT does.

Relevant critiques of CIT and their National Security Alert include:
Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert”, Chris Sarns, Feb 5, 2011
9/11 Pentagon Witnesses:  They Saw the Plane Hit the Pentagon, Video by Jeff Hill, June 14, 2010
Overwhelming Evidence of Insider Complicity, David Chandler and Jon Cole, Dec 2010
“Debating” What Hit the Pentagon by Exaggeration, Name-calling, and Threats, Gregg Roberts, Jan 2011

And critiques that examine CIT’s earlier work “Pentacon” are helpful as well:
Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce or Critiquing PentaCon ,  by Jim Hoffman, July 2009
To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show’, Victoria Ashley, July 2009

Relevant peer-reviewed papers (posted on Journalof911Studies.com):
Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, (B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.)  January 2011
What hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.), July 2009 (updated Feb 2010)

There was a time in the four years after 9/11 when I simply assumed that the official story of the destruction of the WTC Twin Towers on 9/11 was true.  One could say that I “endorsed” the official story based on what I knew at the time, but as I learned more, my opinion of what happened to those buildings evolved radically. John Maynard Keynes, father of Keynesian Economics, once said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” A similar evolution has occurred in relation to my view of CIT’s work.

I strongly recommend that people who care to research what happened at the Pentagon take personal responsibility for forming their own conclusions by acquainting themselves with a wide range of analysis done by people who have come before them rather than jumping to conclusions based on a skewed selection of evidence and argument, or being unduly influenced by any type of authority figure.  Use your own discernment, based on your use of the scientific method to arrive at a coherent theory that you can confidently stand behind.

One of the authors cited above, Frank Legge, PhD., admonishes us to adopt a “prudent approach” to the Pentagon piece of the 9/11 puzzle.  In the end he wisely advocates the “precautionary principle” which is to “assert only what we can truly know,” given the contradictory evidence, misinformation, disinformation, and lack of information from official sources, and the difficulty in verifying much of it, years after the fact and with inadequate resources.

Legge concludes that there is prima facie evidence that “the official explanation of the event at the Pentagon is false and that a cover-up exists. He concludes as well this negative hypothesis: that there is “no proof that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon.”  And, since officials are holding the cards (videos) as to what did or didn’t hit the Pentagon, Dr. Legge’s recommendation is that investigators “take care to avoid publicly asserting that the 757 did not hit the Pentagon”.
We can all agree that no hijacked plane should have been able to violate the airspace of our nation’s capital and hit the headquarters of the most sophisticated defense system in the world – an hour and a half after the assault began on the Twin Towers.

The 9/11 Truth movement will be more likely to succeed in its effort to educate the public about the Pentagon by focusing on those areas of greatest agreement.

Comments

Enter comments below, then click Submit:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below:


Listen Live

Recent Comments

Having read this I thought it was extremely informative. I appreciate you spending some time and energy to put this content together. I once again find myself spending a significant amount of time both reading and commenting. But so what, it was still worthwhile!

By Damaris on 2014 09 01 - 12:35:57
From the entry 'What hit the Pentagon?'.

Having read this I thought it was extremely informative. I appreciate you spending some time and energy to put this content together. I once again find myself spending a significant amount of time both reading and commenting. But so what, it was still worthwhile!

By Damaris on 2014 09 01 - 12:35:53
From the entry 'What hit the Pentagon?'.

Having read this I thought it was extremely informative. I appreciate you spending some time and energy to put this content together. I once again find myself spending a significant amount of time both reading and commenting. But so what, it was still worthwhile!

By Damaris on 2014 09 01 - 12:35:48
From the entry 'What hit the Pentagon?'.

Cris,

you say that “there is very, very minimal jet air traffic where we are, except when rain is likely.”

You can spot jet planes easily if they create contrails, short or long. As I have stated before, contrail conditions usually improve when a weather front is approaching. That explains why you see more jets then.
(As a matter of fact, right now there is a large warm front approaching the area where I live - lots of trails that get more and more embedded into cirrus clouds; tomorrow will be rain all day.)

The big problem is to spot jet planes at cruise altitude when the air is dry up there, and no trails are formed.

It’s hardly possible with bare eyes - not because your or anyone’s eyes are bad, but because the planes are tiny and there is the unwelcome effect of “empty-field myopia”. This means that everyone has trouble focussing on a distant object if there is no reference in the vicinity, like in a uniformly coloured piece of sky. (Leonard Clampett probably knows it from flight school.)

To count any non-trailing planes you need to do a systematic and slow sweep over the visible sky with a pair of binoculars. (You may be surprised!)

Again, have a look at flightaware.com or flightradar24.com, go to your area and see the actual traffic going by your place at any time. Keep in mind that if there are no mountains or buildings blocking the view, you can see contrails in a range of 65 miles and more from your position.

Can you state where you are, county-wise at least? I would like to have a look myself.

Next time you see three planes abreast, or circles, or grids - grab a camera and take a picture. Otherwise it’s hard to say what you saw. May have been normal traffic where the many routes are bound to intersect at some points, or circling in holding positions, or military exercises.

Without seeing pictures, it’s just speculation.

By Josh on 2014 08 30 - 04:22:18
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard Clampett,

I did not talk about ill-meaning individuals when I wrote about the attack on science and reason. I was referring to the ancient caveman in everyone of us, who is always ready to invent a god or some other higher power in order to construct a simple explanation when reality becomes to complex to grasp.

Let me stress that I believe that no one is really safe there, and that it requires an act of will to escape the attraction of explaining world problems away by postulating some secret evil power. I can’t really blame people who fall for it (I myself was into UFOs as a teenager), but unfortunately it distracts from the real problems; consequently I am convinced that someone should give a voice to skepticism ...

That all aside, have you researched ice supersaturation and the creation of water during combustion of hydro-carbons?

By Josh on 2014 08 30 - 04:17:16
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Hi Josh
You have a problem. There is very, very minimal jet air traffic where we are,except when rain is likely.Beside that how would you explain 3 planes abreast spewing the rubbish out? Isn’t that a bit odd? Do Jets usually fly 3 abreast? Do they make circles, checker boards and other weird patterns? And for the record an ex Ansett 767 pilot who came here thinking I was exaggerating about the amount jet made chemtrails, only when rain was forecast, admitted the situation was exactly as I stated. He was a senior pilot, trained in meteorology. I’d say his views should be taken seriously. I believe there is approaching 150 patents for atmospheric modification chemicals alone. Am I to presume that HAARP’s coupling with the chemicals is a fairy story too?
Ignore at your peril. Disinform to your disgrace.
Selah
Cris

By Cris on 2014 08 29 - 13:13:26
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Josua Dietze. So you no longer have to hide from the public, or is it your real name? Wanting to know a name is not a fixation, it is courtesy to advise who you are unless, of course, you have something to hide from. A friend advised me you had come back to continue to spread misinformation, so, why have you not been able to understand a couple of simple things. The first is “conspiracy”, and the second is “theory”.
CONSPIRACY (Middle English-Anglo French) is defined, in the main, as “an unlawful alliance” and some synonyms include: 1. collusion, sedition. 2. Conspiracy, plot, intrigue, cabal all refer to surreptitious or covert schemes to accomplish some end, most often an evil one. A conspiracy usually involves a group entering into a secret agreement to achieve some illicit or harmful objective: a vicious conspiracy to control prices. A plot is a carefully planned secret scheme, usually by a small number of persons, to secure sinister ends: a plot to seize control of a company. An intrigue usually involves duplicity and deceit aimed at achieving either personal advantage or criminal or treasonous objectives: the petty intrigues of civil servants. Cabal refers either to a plan by a small group of highly-placed persons to overthrow or control a government, or to the group of persons themselves: a cabal of powerful lawmakers.
THEORY (late Latin and Greek) is defined as a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena, e.g. Einstein’s theory of relativity.
I am wondering just what seditious, evil, criminal, treasonous, surreptitious, illicit, harmful objectives you believe we, who understand that chemtrails are real, have entered into as a group to viciously “conspire” to cause harm to whomever you think would be harmed by telling the truth as opposed to spreading falsehoods.
In order to conspire, as you can see, a group must enter into some kind of agreement to cause harm. So, the question for you, as the claimant that says people “conspire” to cause harm by pointing out that chemtrails are real, is, “What is the harm that would be caused, and to whom, by those who understand that forces are at work to modify atmospheric conditions, by way of atmospheric spraying of unnatural ingredients to have power over all?”
Do you believe that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, or hundreds of millions of people, across the globe are “conspiring’ with each other to do harm by telling of chemtrails?

By Leonard Clampett on 2014 08 29 - 10:48:14
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

We stumbled over here by a different web page and thought I should check things out. I like what I see so now i’m following you. Look forward to going over your web page yet again.

By Sidney on 2014 08 28 - 01:23:57
From the entry 'What hit the Pentagon?'.

We stumbled over here by a different web page and thought I should check things out. I like what I see so now i’m following you. Look forward to going over your web page yet again.

By Sidney on 2014 08 28 - 01:23:55
From the entry 'What hit the Pentagon?'.

We stumbled over here by a different web page and thought I should check things out. I like what I see so now i’m following you. Look forward to going over your web page yet again.

By Sidney on 2014 08 28 - 01:23:52
From the entry 'What hit the Pentagon?'.

Categories